The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to register.

SNIP

The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law that doesn't require such documentation.

This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states  Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee  have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.

“
So, tell me again what’s more racist; Arizona simply asking for proof of citizenship if you want to vote or, the Federal Government demanding you haul in your entire documented existence just to get some food for your starving children???

Cheers! “

Oh, good point! For that matter...medical care...can you imagine what will have to be provided for Obamacare...unless you’re an illegal alien of course.

BTW...Uncle Janet let out several thousand illegal alien criminals because of the ‘sequester’...but NO US CITIZENS.

21
posted on 03/17/2013 1:03:47 PM PDT
by AuntB
(Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)

but should instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is a citizen...

This seems somewhat burdensome on the criminalien. Couldn't some high priest in the 'Rat party just vouche for the immigrat's legitimacy? Bloomturd, Hillary!, Ø, Plugs, Frankenfeinstein, AlFranken-"Clown", the midget sinator, Marxine, and so on... any one of them I'm sure would be more than happy to vouch for these wannabe ersatz citizens.

26
posted on 03/17/2013 1:22:57 PM PDT
by C210N
(When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)

Opponents "argue that Arizona should not be permitted to request evidence of citizenship when someone registers to vote, but should instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is a citizen," Arizona Attorney General Thomas C. Horne said in court papers.

We shouldn't require someone to show proof of age before buying alcohol or cigarettes, but should rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is of age.

We shouldn't require someone to show proof insurance for their vehicle, but instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is insured.

The states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualiifed voters from voting on the basis of race until the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Likewise, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Likewise, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of taxes owed until the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Finally, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of age until the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Note that 26A did not eliminate discrimination of voting on the basis of age, but made prohibiting people from voting based on age discrimination uniform thoughout the states.

So it is reasonable to conclude, imo, that the states can prohibit people from voting on the basis of unverified citizenship status. This is because the states have never ratified an amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the states from prohibiting otherwise qualified people from voting based on failure to prove citizenship.

And even though it took me a short time to write this post, let's see how long it takes the Supreme Court to make a decision in this case, not that outcome-driven, activist justices will agree with what amounts to a common sense (please forgive me) interpretation of the Constitution.

Well, voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court. One must be a citizen to legally vote. It seems like a logical extension of documenting identity and eligibility to vote.

But to liberals, I know that none of this makes any sense. To liberals, we can’t have any restrictions or documentation because some old lady somewhere, never ever got a driver’s license or government issued ID. Because there are some rare cases such as this, liberals take the position that we can’t ask anyone for any documentation of eligibility.

*you must be at least 25 years of age to vote (except for active duty military)
*military absentee ballots are accounted for and counted first
*you must not be receiving government assistance.
*you must not be a violent felon (reform non-violent felony voting restrictions)
*your identity must be established at the time of voting on the testimony of a certified poll watcher under pain of fines or imprisonment not to exceed $10,000 or 5 years imprisonment per violation.
*Foreign nationals cannot vote.
*Individuals judged legally incompetant cannot vote.
*No one may vote for another person in any capacity except in cases of physical disability, and only with the approval of an attesting physician and the approval of the state election board.
*Single acts of vote fraud, including but not limited to any attempt to defraud the election system through manipulation, coersion, or identity fraud carry a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison on conviction.

There are probably many more things I’ve missed, like reforming the “gerrymandering” that goes on, but that’s just a quick back of the napkin wish list.

Have you ever read the questions asked by GOP politicians when they send you these meaningless surveys through the mail for the sole purpose to get you to contribute?

With the exception of a handful, they are all a bunch of idiots whose only interest is their political survival — nothing more. I often doubt if they are even interested in the survival of this country.

IMO all voter rolls should be dumped. Everyone should be required to re-register in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship. The time has come when we, as a nation, can no longer tolerate fraud in our elections. Our country is sick and it may be terminal. The only way out is to rid our self of the cancer that is rotting us. That is to say, fraudulently elected officials that do not have the country’s bet interest in mind. Socialists, communists, criminals, perverts, and the remaining assorted scum need to be driven from office an never reelected.

I would only add that Article I Section 2 and the 17th Amendment specify that the qualifications of electors to the House and Senate have the same qualifications as electors to the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. If a State requires proof of birth or citizenship to elect state assemblymen, I do not understand how that can be a contested standard for Congressional elections.

36
posted on 03/17/2013 2:40:28 PM PDT
by Jacquerie
("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)

SCOTUS has also agreed to hear arguments on the colour of s@#$te (from Braveheart), whether pigs have wings, and whether water is wet, and whether Tennessee Nana should have shown a picture of a horse laughing, or a cow, instead of a cat.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.